Now is the time to take on California’s screwy system that makes issuance of CCW permits subject to the political whim of the sheriff a violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. The State can then be forced to come up with a standard that meets Constitutional muster for strict scrutiny as regards “the right to keep and bear arms.”

I certainly do. I see no indication in Heller or McDonald which would allow the government to decide whether any individual had a good reason to bear arms. Such individuals have a RIGHT to bear arms and need provide no reason.

Illinois may attempt to create widespread "sensitive places" and they may attempt to create classes of people who can't get a permit. These issues will have to be litigated again, perhaps, but the vast majority of people are going to get permits.

Interesting excerpts: The right to bear as distinct from the right to keep arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of bearing arms within ones home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.

To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property righta right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwells painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state that has a strong pro-gun culture, unlike the states that began allowing concealed carriage before Heller and MacDonald enlarged the scope of Second Amendment rights.

A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.

“They will model their concealed-carry statute on New York Citys rules. Dont expect shall issue CCW to come from this.”

I disagree. Of course Illannoy will do what they can to frustrate the right to bear arms, but the may-issue game is about to die as well; there is a court decision in MD that is turning that game on it’s ear.

More importantly, the culture has shifted. Guns are very popular right now and politicians outside of the bluest areas aren’t interested in getting in the way.

"No worries. Count Obama and the UN will take care of this pesky gun problem once and for all."

I disagree, Army. The United Nations will NOT suppress our 2nd Amendment in my lifetime, and I have about 15 years left. With so many guns and ammunition being bought since Obambi took office, it's apparent that The People are getting tired of collectivism, but ready. And no, I don't think a CWII is coming, but a RWII, well...who knows if the States are ready?

I see a blue helmet or a hevlar with a US flag patch on my street to enforce UN law, that's the day I die. Yes, easy to say for a non-combatant aviation Swabbie. Still, I've lived a full life and the day I see them coming for me or mine or my possessions, it's time to check out. Sure I just got put up to the top on some database, but I really no longer care. Hi guys!

25
posted on 12/11/2012 10:30:29 PM PST
by A Navy Vet
(An Oath is Forever. It's All I Have Left To Believe In!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.